November 11, 2003

Constitution trampled on ...

It's always nice to get some reassuring little sign or indicator, that says we are on the right track. So I was charmed to find that Leftists are appalled that not only has Iraq been torn from the benevolent care of a leader who received 100% of the vote, but that it now is being fed into the rapacious maw of Capitalism! And in defiance of International Law!

....The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's Constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."....

This is from an article in the Nation. It includes the usual baloney, suggesting that Iraq will be owned by Bechtel and Halliburton (who are actually, in the field of International Capitalism, hardly players at all, and not in the habit of buying "banks, mines and factories"). And assuming somehow that Iraq already has "foreign corporations controlling its essential services." (Wow, that was fast!) And assuming that privatization and foreign investment will benefit us, but not Iraq. But it's the legal aspect that tickles me.

How I love to see those "International Law" phonies extolling Saddam's laws and Constitution! Go for it! build a case. I know nothing about that Constitution, but here's the very first thing that came up when I Googled it:

The ICL Edition of the 1990 Constitution did not include the most recent changes of Sep 1995 preparing the popular confirmation of Saddam Hussein as president.� It has been used by the Hussein government as a ruling constitution even though the "referendum" of 15 Oct 1995 only indirectly concerned the constitution - it was a vote to establish Saddam Hussein as president.� The constitutional referendum originally planned for the early 1990s could not take place due to the state of war....�

Such is the venerable, the musty, the ancient, the beloved and time-hallowed document upon which our friends on the Left are pinning hopes of opposing the Americans. So shocking! We are violating Saddam's Constitution!Posted by John Weidner at November 11, 2003 6:54 PM

This is a Random Jottings Archive Page.
To go to the current blog, click here